Christianity

[Gary Childress]

Because if you're getting nothing, then maybe it's time to consider an alternative, if one's available. Why would you want to persist in a reaction, no matter how natural, that goes nowhere?

Because me saying "ouch" doesn't cause me to stub my toe. It's not designed to go anywhere. The reaction isn't designed to get me what I want. It's a relatively harmless reaction to suffering. I think you're confusing the effect of suffering with the cause of suffering. Saying "ouch" is never going to prevent Earthquakes or me stubbing my toe. No sensible person should think that.

I'm curious why you think anything will change by me no longer complaining about my aches.

[Sculptor]

Deism is a minimum belief for theism.
If you do not accept Deism you cannot be a theist, in the sense that what Deism says is the case has also to be at least true of Theism.

No, Deism is its own thing.

Deism agrees with Theism only so far as in that it understands some sort of "god" to be the creator of the universe. It also holds that the universe has a mechanistic, law-like structure, such that only an intelligent creator could have produced it. It may even tip over so far as a sort of "natural law" perspective, in that it can believe that morality is somehow embedded in the created order.

But it denies that the same "god" can do more than set things in mechanical motion and retire the field. God no longer "exists" in any practical way. He's gone picnicking, and he's not coming back. He has no further interest in things, beyond being their "divine watchmaker," to use the old phrase.

In that, it is very different from Judeo-Christian, or even Islamic Theism (though it's much closer to the latter than either of the former). In all three, God is, in some measure, not merely the Creator but personal, as well...aware, active, and often involved in the proceedings. And in Judaism and Christianity, He's more intimately engaged with his Creation than Deism can ever allow.

So a theist is a deist who makes false claims based on no evidence

[Harbal]

...I don't agree with you that its not being a win for anybody affects its credibility....

I didn't say that.

No, you didn't actually say that, but you did seem to imply that it might be a factor in how popular a particular belief might be. The thing is, if the truth is genuinely what you desire, you can't let yourself be influenced by what you would prefer the truth to be. I happen to be one of those people who want the truth, even when it would be better not to have it.

So I would suggest that Deism puts the believer in it in an "on the fence" position. He gets to believe in A "god" of some kind, but not one that is interested in him, or has any plans associated with him, or seeks any relationship with him, or can help him...and so on. At the same time, though, he's not able to grasp the freedom of the total Atheist, either; for he thinks he lives in a world constrained by patterns of mechanistic rules that will punish him if he ignores them. So he lacks the meaningfulness of full belief, but also the freedom of the Atheist. He has neither.

And as one of my old friends used to say, "The only thing you get from sitting on the fence is a sore crotch."

Am I an atheist because it gives me freedom? I don't know. It doesn't seem like that to me, but self assessment is notoriously unreliable. We don't all have the same hopes and fears, and that probably has a lot to do with who embraces Christianity and who doesn't. I don't hope for eternal life, which mean I don't fear eternal oblivion; in fact, I would prefer it, which, I have to admit, also puts me under suspicion of choosing my beliefs according to my preferences. My only defense for that is that I'm just as human as everyone else. I don't believe there is such a thing as The Soul, but, again, I don't want to believe it. It strikes me that there are possible circumstances under which being a disembodied soul might not be a jolly experience. As for sitting on the fence, what choice is there when you simply don't know, and if we are honest with ourselves, who among us can know, let alone does know?

It can go either way, of course, but more commonly yours, perhaps. However, why is that? Is it that faith is inherently childish? Or is it that the kind of childish faith you describe is not enough for a man; and that unless faith grows, sophisticates, and matures with the man, it becomes inadequate, and he abandons it?

Or maybe the concerns he has about his own existence are not of the kind that having your sort of faith would address.

It is more when you are trying to undermine the arguments of your antagonists that your respect for the truth tends to slide.

Yet did I not say that I understand why that is? As soon as an objection to the "antagonist" seems penetrating, does it not also immediately arouse suspicion? After all, if the listener takes for granted that God simply CANNOT exist, then some trick must be involved if it ever starts to look, for even a moment, like He might.

No, I wasn't thinking about your arguments defending your beliefs, I was thinking about your approach to dealing with arguments against them. The most recent example I can think of was in our exchange about evolution. Your rejection of any aspects of the theory is legitimate; you are entitled to hold whatever opinion you choose, but your assertion that there are things that cast serious doubts on its veracity as a scientific theory -even if only regarding human evolution- is totally unjustified, and I am sure you know that. Evolution theory is not in trouble, and there are no honest grounds for saying it is. That, of course, does not restrict your freedom to pick as many holes in it as you like, but please don't imply that the scientific community at large are having doubts, because that is simply not true.

Do you really know that God does not exist, and know it with the same sort of certainty that you know that live ladies cannot be sawn in half?

No, of course I don't know for certain that God doesn't exist, although I do have something aproaching certainty where the biblical God is concerned. But my doubts about the existence of God are, as it happens, of the same nature as my doubts about live ladies being sawn in half with no ill effects. They are both totally outside of what my experience tells me is likely.

[seeds]

_______

AND...once again you knuckleheads are allowing Mr. Con to control the narrative in such a way that allows him to move the conversation as far away as possible from the initial task of getting him to justify the ETERNAL (unimaginably brutal) TORTURE of anyone who does not accept Jesus as their personal savior.

We're talking about a savior to redeem them from the hereditarily bequeathed consequences of an alleged "Original Sin" involving an "apple-swiping caper" that took place in a mythological setting between two mythological humans, a talking snake, and a magical tree.



Now, I realize and appreciate the fact that Mr. Con sincerely believes that he is simply being helpful by spreading the "Good News" of how humans can save themselves from the horrifying torture chamber that Jesus has prepared for them.

However, he nonetheless comes-off as someone who, in the end,...

(even if it were his own friends and loved ones writhing in agony in the eternal fires of Hell)

...would revel in a smug sense of self-satisfaction at seeing all those who ignored his repeated warnings, get what's coming to them because of what, again, two mythological characters did in a mythological setting.
_______

[Harbal]

I didn't say that.

No, you didn't actually say that, but you did seem to imply that it might be a factor in how popular a particular belief might be. The thing is, if the truth is genuinely what you desire, you can't let yourself be influenced by what you would prefer the truth to be. I happen to be one of those people who want the truth, even when it would be better not to have it.

So I would suggest that Deism puts the believer in it in an "on the fence" position. He gets to believe in A "god" of some kind, but not one that is interested in him, or has any plans associated with him, or seeks any relationship with him, or can help him...and so on. At the same time, though, he's not able to grasp the freedom of the total Atheist, either; for he thinks he lives in a world constrained by patterns of mechanistic rules that will punish him if he ignores them. So he lacks the meaningfulness of full belief, but also the freedom of the Atheist. He has neither.

And as one of my old friends used to say, "The only thing you get from sitting on the fence is a sore crotch."

Am I an atheist because it gives me freedom? I don't know. It doesn't seem like that to me, but self assessment is notoriously unreliable. We don't all have the same hopes and fears, and that probably has a lot to do with who embraces Christianity and who doesn't. I don't hope for eternal life, which means I don't fear eternal oblivion; in fact, I would prefer it, which, I have to admit, also puts me under suspicion of choosing my beliefs according to my preferences. My only defense for that is that I'm just as human as everyone else. I don't believe there is such a thing as The Soul, but, again, I don't want to believe it. It strikes me that there are possible circumstances under which being a disembodied soul might not be a jolly experience. As for sitting on the fence, what choice is there when you simply don't know, and if we are honest with ourselves, who among us can know, let alone does know?

It can go either way, of course, but more commonly yours, perhaps. However, why is that? Is it that faith is inherently childish? Or is it that the kind of childish faith you describe is not enough for a man; and that unless faith grows, sophisticates, and matures with the man, it becomes inadequate, and he abandons it?

Or maybe the concerns he has about his own existence are not of the kind that having your sort of faith would address.

Yet did I not say that I understand why that is? As soon as an objection to the "antagonist" seems penetrating, does it not also immediately arouse suspicion? After all, if the listener takes for granted that God simply CANNOT exist, then some trick must be involved if it ever starts to look, for even a moment, like He might.

No, I wasn't thinking about your arguments defending your beliefs, I was thinking about your approach to dealing with arguments against them. The most recent example I can think of was in our exchange about evolution. Your rejection of any aspects of the theory is legitimate; you are entitled to hold whatever opinion you choose, but your assertion that there are things that cast serious doubts on its veracity as a scientific theory -even if only regarding human evolution- is totally unjustified, and I am sure you know that. Evolution theory is not in trouble, and there are no honest grounds for saying it is. That, of course, does not restrict your freedom to pick as many holes in it as you like, but please don't imply that the scientific community at large are having doubts, because that is simply not true.

Do you really know that God does not exist, and know it with the same sort of certainty that you know that live ladies cannot be sawn in half?

No, of course I don't know for certain that God doesn't exist, although I do have something aproaching certainty where the biblical God is concerned. But my doubts about the existence of God are, as it happens, of the same nature as my doubts about live ladies being sawn in half with no ill effects. They are both totally outside of what my experience tells me is likely.

[Immanuel Can]

...I don't agree with you that its not being a win for anybody affects its credibility....

I didn't say that.

No, you didn't actually say that, but you did seem to imply that it might be a factor in how popular a particular belief might be.

Well, I did not mean to "seem" to say that. And in truth, I never thought it, either.

So I would suggest that Deism puts the believer in it in an "on the fence" position. He gets to believe in A "god" of some kind, but not one that is interested in him, or has any plans associated with him, or seeks any relationship with him, or can help him...and so on. At the same time, though, he's not able to grasp the freedom of the total Atheist, either; for he thinks he lives in a world constrained by patterns of mechanistic rules that will punish him if he ignores them. So he lacks the meaningfulness of full belief, but also the freedom of the Atheist. He has neither.

And as one of my old friends used to say, "The only thing you get from sitting on the fence is a sore crotch."

Am I an atheist because it gives me freedom? I don't know. It doesn't seem like that to me, but self assessment is notoriously unreliable. We don't all have the same hopes and fears, and that probably has a lot to do with who embraces Christianity and who doesn't. I don't hope for eternal life, which mean I don't fear eternal oblivion; in fact, I would prefer it, which, I have to admit, also puts me under suspicion of choosing my beliefs according to my preferences. My only defense for that is that I'm just as human as everyone else. I don't believe there is such a thing as The Soul, but, again, I don't want to believe it. It strikes me that there are possible circumstances under which being a disembodied soul might not be a jolly experience. As for sitting on the fence, what choice is there when you simply don't know, and if we are honest with ourselves, who among us can know, let alone does know?

What choice? I would say that agnosticism was understandable. I would say that neither Atheism nor Deism are reasonable...the former, far too non-evidentiary to be rational, and the latter a fence-sitting compromise with poor outcomes. And, of course, I think that Theism is also an option, if one you are presently disinclined to take.

It can go either way, of course, but more commonly yours, perhaps. However, why is that? Is it that faith is inherently childish? Or is it that the kind of childish faith you describe is not enough for a man; and that unless faith grows, sophisticates, and matures with the man, it becomes inadequate, and he abandons it?

Or maybe the concerns he has about his own existence are not of the kind that having your sort of faith would address.

That's interesting. What sort of "concerns" would fill that bill?

It is more when you are trying to undermine the arguments of your antagonists that your respect for the truth tends to slide.

Yet did I not say that I understand why that is? As soon as an objection to the "antagonist" seems penetrating, does it not also immediately arouse suspicion? After all, if the listener takes for granted that God simply CANNOT exist, then some trick must be involved if it ever starts to look, for even a moment, like He might.

No, I wasn't thinking about your arguments defending your beliefs, I was thinking about your approach to dealing with arguments against them. The most recent example I can think of was in our exchange about evolution. Your rejection of any aspects of the theory is legitimate; you are entitled to hold whatever opinion you choose, but your assertion that there are things that cast serious doubts on its veracity as a scientific theory -even if only regarding human evolution- is totally unjustified, and I am sure you know that.

Quite the contrary.

The sorts of reservations I have shared are not only my own, but also represent the concerns of a host of very intelligent others. We must not be fooled by the smugness of the pro-Evolutionist camp; they often hope to win their case by sheer bluff, and by weight of numbers when their bluff is called. This is why, "The whole matter is beyond question" is such an important phrase for them; they're not in a strong position to defend. But I believe that anybody who looks thoughtfully at the mathematical, rational, biological, historical and evidentiary problems with the theory will surely be prone to some reservations, if not to outright rejection of the theory.

However, my sincerity on the point would not automatically make me right; but lack of sincerity also wouldn't make me wrong about that. The rightness or wrongness of the claim that the Evolutionists' faith has serious holes in it would only be discovered by examination of the theory and evidence.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm curious why you think anything will change by me no longer complaining about my aches.

I never suggested it did.

But if you'll forgive me, I see a lot more than "ouching" going on in your posts. "Ouch" is, after all, just an inarticulate expression of pain. But you're not inarticulate. You say quite a lot, and much of it quite specific. You're brooding over the aches and pains you've had, circling on the hurts of the past, and emoting resentment...as if you are somehow convinced somebody's "done you wrong."

But Gary, if there's no God, nobody's "done you wrong." There's no "wrong." Whatever your lot, and whatever happened to you, it was all just the random toss of the dice in an indifferent universe. Chance dealt you a hand you don't like: well, that's what you should expect from a universe that has no care for you, no justice in it, and no promise of any. So why the resentment? Why the bitterness? And why the desire to complain about something that was just fated to be, anyway? To whom do you complain? On what principle?

But here's what I see: I see you feel you deserved better. And I see you think you (in some sense) should have been allowed to get it. You feel a sense of injustice, aggrievance, unfairness, and cruelty in it all, and you seem to want somebody to know about that.

May I ask you why?

[Immanuel Can]

So a theist is a deist who makes false claims based on no evidence

Does such an obvious misrepresentation deserve a response?

I think not.

[Harbal]

Well, I did not mean to "seem" to say that. And in truth, I never thought it, either.

Okay, let it be struck from the record.

What choice? I would say that agnosticism was understandable. I would say that neither Atheism nor Deism are reasonable...the former, far too non-evidentiary to be rational, and the latter a fence-sitting compromise with poor outcomes. And, of course, I think that Theism is also an option, if one you are presently disinclined to take.

You make it sound like a choice that has to be made, but for a lot of people, such as me, it isn't even an issue. I wouldn't even think about it normally.

That's interesting. What sort of "concerns" would fill that bill?

Well I don't know, but neither do I know what concerns religion would address. I mean, I've had my fair share of concerns throughout my life, but none that have tempted me to consider religion as an option for dealing with them.

Quite the contrary.

The sorts of reservations I have shared are not only my own, but also represent the concerns of a host of very intelligent others. We must not be fooled by the smugness of the pro-Evolutionist camp;

You really are the limit, IC. They are not smug, and they are not a camp. Evolution theory is a branch of science, for goodness sake, people don't study it and do research so they can feel smug and form a gang. And who are this "host of very intelligent others"? Do you have a few school teachers in your local congregation? Well at least you have illustrated and confirmed the point I was making about the shabbiness of your tactics.

they're not in a strong position to defend.

I don't suppose a challenge from religious nuts is something they would want to dignify by responding with a defence.

But I believe that anybody who looks thoughtfully at the mathematical, rational, biological, historical and evidentiary problems with the theory will surely be prone to some reservations, if not to outright rejection of the theory.

I'm astonished at how little regard you have for your credibility, IC.

[iambiguous]

Well, no...you don't know that. In fact, you have no reason even to suppose it, based on the mere observation that believe in God is "useful" for something.

Entertainment, anyone?

Come on, IC, you yourself noted that if there is no afterlife [linked to the Christian God for those like you] "then there's absolutely no reason at all to deny oneself anything one might be inclined to do or have."

Not far removed from, say, what many sociopaths will argue?

Well, you've forgotten that it's not me who said all that: it's Nietzsche.

Absolutely shameless!!!

You were not pointing out to Belinda above that this is what Nietzsche said. You were noting it is what you yourself believe about someone who does not believe there is an afterlife. After all, you're the one who connects it to the Christian God! You're the one who, as with many, many Christians, note that in the absence of God all things are permitted.

Nietzsche was merely noting the consequences of a No God world for mere mortals on this side of the grave. The masters making life miserable for the slaves because they deserved to and the slaves forming liberal "welfare state" governments to fight back.

The sociopaths among us merely act that out "for all practical purposes". While others even attempt to justify being a sociopath...philosophically? No God, no Judgment Day. No Judgment Day, no mere mortals qualified to take the place of God. You're on your own.

Plato, Descartes, Kant and others notwithstanding. Deontology is still a bust, right? There is still no APA equivalent of the Ten Commandments, is there?

And the bottom line in any community, whether as a result of courage or cunning is this: which behaviors are prescribed and which are proscribed. Whether you call this morality or something else.

It's only when the afterlife becomes part of the moral narrative and political agenda that whatever you call it is linked to Judgment Day. And tell me that isn't all about Divine morality. Just ask the folks living in theocracies. Morality can be "useful" and "truthful" in any number of historical, cultural and interpersonal contexts. On this side of the grave. On the other side, however, it always comes down to the One True Path. And on this thread, yours.

Right, Mr. Wiggle?

But this adds no insight to the question. That Neitzsche's untermenschen are resentful and try to prevent the ubermenschen from having their way is neither here nor there: the ubermenschen simply overpower or outmanoeuver the foolish untermenschen, with their foolish, weakling notions of morality. They may have to be cunning, but they have no duty to be good.

But that's exactly what you are saying above. No afterlife [linked to the Christian God] means no duty to behave selflessly, righteously.

That's what Nietzsche is saying. I'm not Nietzsche.

Absolutely shameless!!!

Nietzsche doesn't connect the dots between duty and the afterlife. Unless you count eternal recurrence. But you do. And with burning in Hell for all the eternity literally on the line here, are you or are you not connecting those dots yourself? Is there an afterlife without Judgment Day? Is there a Judgment Day without the Christian God?

Now, for the God folks though, the hard part: actually demonstrating that it is your God and only your God that does in fact exist.

Not that hard.

Almost all of the human race, in fact, has taken it to be the most obvious interpretation of the evidence. It turns out that skepticism is the rare taste, one possibly possessed by around 4% of the modern world's population, according to the CIA factbook, and certainly a much smaller sampling of humanity before the last century.

Right. That sure settles it!

No, but it puts the burden of proof where it belongs. That's good enough, for the moment.

What?!

Because, without an actual accumulation of hard evidence, most mere mortals do believe in an afterlife "in their head" -- a leap of faith, a wager -- that puts the burden of proof on atheists?!!!

And even here, connecting the dots between an afterlife and the Christian God revolves entirely around automatically dismissing all of the One True Paths here of these folks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

What, that almost all of them do believe in an afterlife establishes that Christianity alone is the One True Path? They're not insisting instead it's their God and their denomination?

Cue Mr. Wiggle, of course.

You claim that a God, the God, your God does in fact exist. But it's incumbent upon me to demonstrate that He doesn't.

I don't just claim it. It's rationally necessary that, if I have to have warrant for my belief, you need to have warrant for your claim that God does not exist. Both are true, if you and I think ourselves to be rational men.

Over and over and over again: I don't claim that God does not exist. I don't claim the Christian God does not exist. But you really do believe that both those who claim He does exist and those that insist "show me" are equally incumbent here...? What is the atheist required to do...scour the globe and search everywhere for Him? Investigate the Moon and all the planets? What if the Christian God resides at the center of the Sun? Or in some other far and distant quadrant of the universe? Not until every nook and cranny of the multiverse itself is searched can the atheist demonstrate that God does not exist. And even then, those like you would no doubt point out that He can make Himself invisible. It's in the videos.

Still, there's your own preferred methods:

1] quoting from the Christian Bible to prove the Christian God does exist
2] those videos

Only you lack the courage to note the clip/segment from the video that most establishes that in fact the Christian does reside in Heaven. Though I suspect it has nothing to do with courage...but with cunning. You're smart enough to know that this clip/segment does not in fact exist at all.

Or does it? Your call, Mr. Wiggle.

The irony here being that over and again I argue that given the staggering mystery embedded in the existence of existence itself, of course a God, the God might be the explanation. Never would I insist that I have definitive proof that He doesn't.

Oh, dear: that's a very serious problem for your position, then. It means you have to be an agnostic of some kind. And then you have to suspect that maybe you're just plain wrong.

Yeah, going back to the gap between what "here and now" I know about the existence of existence itself and all that there is to be known about it....? Agnostic works for me. But my point revolves more around confronting "minds" like yours actually able to convince themselves that they are "just plain right" about their own One True Path. And in embarrassing them by noting that they offer us no hard evidence to back their convictions up.

So then the question becomes, what evidence will you accept? Because you're going to need some, for whichever position you take.

I've already noted an example that would work for me: I wake up tomorrow morning and not a single child anywhere around the globe is reported to have been abused in anyway whatsoever. And instead of 10,000 children dying every 24 hours around the globe from starvation or extreme poverty, none do for days and days on end. That might not demonstrate the existence of the Christian God, perhaps, but it would go a long way [for me] toward establishing a Divine explanation.

And then of course back to being "absolutely shameless!" again:

And I know what you'll say: Pope...Rome. And I'll point out that you know Pope...Rome based on rumour. And I'll ask if you're actually trying to tell me you'd believe in God based on rumour, just as you believe the Pope...Rome thing?

And you'll never answer. You'll scoff and run away, because you know you're caught. We've been around this circle already.

Note to others:

As I've noted above, my exchanges with IC are basically just something I do to amuse myself. I simply have no respect for his intelligence here. Or suspect it might actually be a "condition".

But that's just me. It may be fair, it may be unfair. It's just my own entirely subjective personal opinion rooted existentially in dasein.

For others here, however, their own reaction may be different. So, sure, if you ever do come across something that he has posted that impresses you...something in the way of evidence that the Christian God really does reside in Heaven beyond a "leap of faith", by all means, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me. I'm more than willing to acknowledge when he posts something here that is not "absolutely shameless".

Oh, and I challenge anyone here to get him to post that video clip/segment. I told him above I'm willing to accept just the one video alone that it is in. But even here he wiggles out of it.

Why is that? I've offered my own conjectures above.

[Immanuel Can]

What choice? I would say that agnosticism was understandable. I would say that neither Atheism nor Deism are reasonable...the former, far too non-evidentiary to be rational, and the latter a fence-sitting compromise with poor outcomes. And, of course, I think that Theism is also an option, if one you are presently disinclined to take.

You make it sound like a choice that has to be made, but for a lot of people, such as me, it isn't even an issue. I wouldn't even think about it normally.

That's interesting. I've been reading Charles Taylor's book, "A Secular Age," and he thinks that's the option most people today take...to leave these issues unraised, these positions undefined...not to think about them at all.

Is that good? He seems to think not. I would tend to agree. And philosophy is one of those annoying disciplines that simply cannot resist poking at questions others would not even think to touch.

That's interesting. What sort of "concerns" would fill that bill?

Well I don't know, but neither do I know what concerns religion would address. I mean, I've had my fair share of concerns throughout my life, but none that have tempted me to consider religion as an option for dealing with them.

I'll annoy you when I say this, but I don't consider "religion" either. Of course, that would depend on what one thinks "religion" means...but that's a big issue, in itself.

Evolution theory is a branch of science, for goodness sake

That's what people are taught. It's not what's true.

It's not a "branch of science" at all. It's just one faulty theory in the more general field of historical biology, and as such, not more privileged than the geocentric theory. Both need proper scientific evaluation, and for a long time, didn't get it. But that just shows how "this is science" is often used to prevent thought -- we have a more recent example of the same phenomenon in the "trust the science" meme of the COVID debacle. We should always be suspicious when somebody says, "This is established science...so shawdup!" It's a sure indicator of bluffing.

...who are this "host of very intelligent others"?

Oh, goodness. Do you mean you've never heard of somebody having a doubt about some aspect of Evolutionism? Really?

Well, let me point you to a couple, if I may...try the names Berlinski, Behe, Craig, Peterson...all have expressed intelligent reservations about the conventional theory.

they're not in a strong position to defend.

I don't suppose a challenge from religious nuts is something they would want to dignify by responding with a defence.

That's what the Evolutionistic propaganda depends on: not refutation or shoring up the theory, but claiming inerrancy, scoffing, and running away. That's how they convince you there's nothing to discuss.

But we can both recognize an ad hominem evasion when we see one.

[Immanuel Can]

Entertainment, anyone?

Come on, IC, you yourself noted that if there is no afterlife [linked to the Christian God for those like you] "then there's absolutely no reason at all to deny oneself anything one might be inclined to do or have."

Not far removed from, say, what many sociopaths will argue?

Well, you've forgotten that it's not me who said all that: it's Nietzsche.

Absolutely shameless!!!

You were not pointing out to Belinda above that this is what Nietzsche said.

Yeah, I was. Go back and check.

Nietzsche was merely noting the consequences of a No God world for mere mortals on this side of the grave.

So? That's exactly what I was pointing out.

But this adds no insight to the question. That Neitzsche's untermenschen are resentful and try to prevent the ubermenschen from having their way is neither here nor there: the ubermenschen simply overpower or outmanoeuver the foolish untermenschen, with their foolish, weakling notions of morality. They may have to be cunning, but they have no duty to be good.

But that's exactly what you are saying above. No afterlife [linked to the Christian God] means no duty to behave selflessly, righteously.

That's what Nietzsche is saying. I'm not Nietzsche.

Nietzsche doesn't connect the dots between duty and the afterlife.

Nobody says he did. He connected the opposite: the absence of any God (and hence afterlife) with total amorality.

What, that almost all of them do believe in an afterlife establishes that Christianity alone is the One True Path? They're not insisting instead it's their God and their denomination?

I've said this before, but I guess you couldn't understand. I'l make it as simple for you as I can.

The number of "answers" to any question does not argue for there being no right answer. It suggests, instead, that there are a lot of wrong answers. One may be right.

There are an infinite number of wrong answers to "What is 2+2." "6" is wrong. So is "5,000.4," and all the numbers before and after, save one: "4".

I don't claim that God does not exist. I don't claim the Christian God does not exist.

Oh? Are you an agnostic?

Agnostic works for me.

Done.

So what are you complaining about? God might exist, you now say. And you don't know He doesn't. So are you going to suppose He owes you a demonstration, or something? You don't know a whole bunch of things that exist. Heck, you don't even know me. What's the big surprise if, up to now, you've never had an experience of God, or don't know what the evidence is?

So then the question becomes, what evidence will you accept? Because you're going to need some, for whichever position you take.

I've already noted an example that would work for me: I wake up tomorrow morning and not a single child anywhere around the globe is reported to have been abused in anyway whatsoever. And instead of 10,000 children dying every 24 hours around the globe from starvation or extreme poverty, none do for days and days on end. That might not demonstrate the existence of the Christian God, perhaps, but it would go a long way [for me] toward establishing a Divine explanation.

Ah. So you think that if God existed, he would owe you to give you the kind of world you expect or prefer? But you don't think God could ever have a sufficient reason for allowing any such thing as pain and suffering, even for a time? And you assume that God would be the only responsible agent in the universe, so that not only would no accidents befall anyone, but no one person could hurt any other person?

I'm just wondering why you think that such a universe suddenly appearing would go any distance toward suggesting the existence of God.

[Dontaskme]

IC wrote:

What a sweet land you live in! Goodness, truth and love are always rewarded...

No, B., they are not. C.S. Lewis perceptively writes,

“To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements. Lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket, safe, dark, motionless, airless, it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. To love is to be vulnerable.”

Yes, IC, they are...Goodness, truth and love are always rewarded.

The proof is in the pudding, the proof is all around you, in the actual direct experience, which has been my own personal experience.

The heart is unbreakable, because all there is, is unconditional free LOVE. Everything is THIS LOVE. Nothing can break this LOVE, certainly not vulnerability. Nothing can attack or harm LOVE....You are Love.
Agape Love of which comes naturally to the human species, as Belinda so rightly points out. Agape Love has nothing to do with God worship. It's simply a naturally occuring phenomena within the human species. Some human beings seem to be incapable of knowing Love, they simply cannot fathom Love is real, who then go on to think their hearts are broken, fearing love is out to break them when that's simply not true. Some people just KNOW what real love is, while others like yourself fail to see it as a real and natural human phenomena, all because you wrongly believe LOVE is from some God, and only through God can real and true love be experienced, when it isn't from God at all, rather, it's simply what it means to be human, and that's the only Love there is.

And that's the truth you fail miserably to accept IC, because of your skewed and distorted belief in the duality of heaven and hell, where you condemn one in favor of the other, and yet both are mutually all inclusive the same one LOVE.

And you will continue to ignore this IC, because you fail to accept you and only you are the only source of knowledge.

[Harbal]

What choice? I would say that agnosticism was understandable. I would say that neither Atheism nor Deism are reasonable...the former, far too non-evidentiary to be rational, and the latter a fence-sitting compromise with poor outcomes. And, of course, I think that Theism is also an option, if one you are presently disinclined to take.

You make it sound like a choice that has to be made, but for a lot of people, such as me, it isn't even an issue. I wouldn't even think about it normally.

That's interesting. I've been reading Charles Taylor's book, "A Secular Age," and he thinks that's the option most people today take...to leave these issues unraised, these positions undefined...not to think about them at all.

Charles Taylor, indeed.

Curious, after one of our previous encounters, I asked my daughter if she believed in God. I expected her to say no, and was a bit disappointed when she didn't. All was not lost, though, because she didn't say yes, either. She sort of grimaced and shrugged, and eventually came out with, "well I sometimes think there must be something." I asked her if that thought had any influence on the way she lived her life or how she conducted herself in any way. To those questions I got an instant and satisfying no. I expect that is a pretty typical attitude these days. I don't mind if you pass on that anecdote to Charles Taylor, btw.

Is that good? He seems to think not. I would tend to agree. And philosophy is one of those annoying disciplines that simply cannot resist poking at questions others would not even think to touch

I don't know why anyone would feel a need to adopt a set of superstitious beliefs, and I can't say it's either a good or bad thing to do. I can only say it doesn't seem like a good thing to me, and I have never had any impulse to do it. You can poke any question that others would not even think to touch you can think of touching at me. I can only answer in relation to myself, though.

I'll annoy you when I say this, but I don't consider "religion" either. Of course, that would depend on what one thinks "religion" means...but that's a big issue, in itself.

In regard to my comment, religion means believing in some kind of god and conforming to a set of rules that you imagine he's given to you. I cannot think of a single benefit that could come from that.

Well, let me point you to a couple, if I may...try the names Berlinski, Behe, Craig, Peterson...all have expressed intelligent reservations about the conventional theory.

What is the point of presenting me with that? If I could be bothered, I could easily find four names who have expressed intelligent support of the theory.

It is irresponsible of you to encourage the rejection of legitimate science merely because it conflicts with an irrational belief you have. We hear about stupid religious parents in America pressuring schools to stop teaching evolution, and only teach creationism. That is alarming. Religion must not be allowed to stifle science. It's an important principle, IC. Can't you just believe what you want to believe without trying to harm anyone else?

[tillingborn]

The theory you are advancing is Evolutionism. For it, you have no sufficient transitional forms...

Your bar for "sufficient" is set very low...

It's not "my bar." It's the claims of Evolutionism itself that are at fault.

It very much is your bar. Frankly I wasn't sure what you mean by "Evolutionism", so I looked it up to discover: "The term is most often used by creationists to describe adherence to the scientific consensus on evolution as equivalent to a secular religion." "Evolutionism" is a straw man. Evolution is not a belief; it does not claim that predation, scavenging and erosion take a holiday with regards to animal remains, to ensure the preservation of some arbitrary number of perfectly preserved "transitional forms" which would not persuade people determined to believe ancient myths anyway. As you are no doubt aware, there is no amount of evidence that will persuade some that the world isn't flat. It is no more a theory that organisms, including homo sapiens have evolved than it is that the Earth is round. The theory is that traits and characteristics that make a specimen more likely to breed successfully will favour certain changes; that organisms change over time is not in question.

You complain about my beliefs, and caricature them in order to dismiss them, even while not really knowing what I believe.

Part of the reason for that is that there are some beliefs you are not open about when you are asked a direct question, this one for example:

Do you believe that God created the "original mating pair" like this?
"The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being...
So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man’s side and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man."

If after nearly ten years on this forum and over 17 600 posts you haven't made your beliefs clear, that is your failure.

I'm not offended: that's a standard tactic, of course.

It is clearly one used by creationists. Not only is "Evolutionism" a fiction, so too are "Atheist" and "Progressivist":

And what on Earth have "progressivist enthusiasms" to do with evolution?

They account for the acceptance of a theory that lacks scientific warrant, but is still proclaimed "true" and immune to critique, to a degree that no other scientific theory ever is. Evolutionism is the Atheist's sacred cow, because it promises warrant for believing that the universe and all its creatures can have come into being by pure chance.

You are manifestly projecting your want as a reason to believe onto others:

You're not alone.
Life is hard, but it's not the end of everything. There's hope.
God doesn't hate you.
God wants you to know Him, and with that,...
There are better things ahead.

What wouldn't be "good" about that?

It is nonsense to believe that people who don't think as you do want the opposite of what you want.

But your own problem remains...

"Evolutionism" is your problem, not mine.